Generally, data outputs from a laboratory instrument testing of a subject sample may be utilized to monitor the performance of the instrument or to provide a comparison set of results for the subject being tested. Specifically, the subject sample being tested can include a standardized external quality control sample distributed by a testing organization or an individual patient sample to be tested and analyzed. For example, if the subject sample is a standardized external quality control sample, the test results from the instrument allow the laboratory to ensure that the instrument is properly functioning by comparing the instrument data with peer group results of the same sample. Similarly, if the subject sample is from an individual patient, one or more tests provide a comparison set of data to measure the progress of the patient. With either type of subject sample, the results from the test are critical to the operation of the testing laboratory. Moreover, the subject testing can be conducted by one or more instruments to form a laboratory testing group.
With regard to the testing of a external quality control sample, a conventional method of control group testing entails testing and directly comparing the results to a peer group becomes deficient if the peer group is too small. For example, if a group of laboratory instruments testing a proficiency sample includes data from only eight instruments, the relatively small number of instrument results do not provide an adequate peer group to construct a proper range of expected results. Accordingly, in such a scenario, it would be advantageous to utilize a larger peer group, such as 400 or 500 instruments from a plurality of laboratories, to develop a proper range of results. However, under the conventional method, differences between the instruments, in the form of calibration differences, statistical behavior differences and/or test method differences, can yield differences between the laboratory group results and the peer group results. Thus, the conventional method of a direct comparison between the results of the two groups could be either impossible or erroneous.
With regard to the testing of a patient subject sample, the conventional method of testing and directly comparing the data results between a first and second sample can become deficient if the patient group is mobile and there are differences between the laboratory instruments. Specifically, a patient sample may be tested by a first group of laboratory instruments yielding a first set of results. If a second test is conducted by a second group of laboratory instruments, differences between the instruments of the two groups may cause a reviewer to believe there is a larger discrepancy between the results then there actually is.
For example, a first test of a patient sample indicates that the amount of a substance in the patient test sample was 100. If the second test conducted by another laboratory group indicates that the amount of the substance in the patient sample is 384, a direct comparison of the two results would indicate that the patient sample had a substantial increase in the amount of the substance present. However, it could be possible that the actual difference in the amount of the substance in the sample is minimal and that large difference is due primarily to the differences (e.g. calibration differences) between the two laboratory instrument groups. Accordingly, the conventional method of a direct comparison would cause an improper analysis.
Thus, there is a need for a method and device for facilitating the comparison of laboratory group results with peer group quality control results by mitigating differences in the instruments. Additionally, there is a need for a method and device allowing patient sample results to be normalized for comparison by reducing differences between the groups.